Every action brings about an equal and opposite reaction. So on the day after Kim Dotcom's Mega launched, it's no surprise that an anti-piracy campaign sprung up focused directly on the new service. Today, only one week later, that campaign claims to have already made progress.

StopFileLockers.com is an anti-piracy group that attempts to take down file-hosting services by attacking their finances. Its lead man, Robert King, spoke with TorrentFreak this week about SFL's “campaign to have the payment processing of all Mega resellers terminated.” King cited Mega resellers using PayPal without meeting that site's required standards, saying those sites were in the process of being terminated. Now, out of Mega’s ten resellers, four removed the ability to pay for Mega via PayPal: Pay.mobi, GratisAntivirus, VoucherReseller, and Hosting.co.uk.

“It’s been widely publicized that file sharing sites need to obtain pre-approval in order to process payments with PayPal,” King told TorrentFreak. “Whilst we cannot speak for PayPal, we would expect that PayPal would simply be applying their standards fairly to all file sharing sites and that includes Mega and its resellers.”

TorrentFreak did not receive any comment from PayPal on the matter, but SFL's site contains blog posts detailing the state of each Mega reseller's PayPal offerings (see below). Mega isn't the only file locker currently in the SFL crosshairs either—Hotfile saw its relationship with PayPal end this week after a lengthy campaign from SFL.

136 Reader Comments

It's hard to decide which is the least ethically-ambiguous: file locker site, PayPal, or an organization that exists only to trash file locker sites.

But I guess since I no longer accept PayPal in my own online transactions (after PayPal repeatedly, summarily, and without any recourse decided I was not a legitimate business, then changed their minds with no explanation or apology, tying up months-worth of my income in the process), and since I can't seem to muster any sympathy for StopFileLockers.com, and since I actually find file locker sites to have significant uses of benefit to me personally and those I work with… I guess I'm with Mega.

I do hope this sort of shenanigans causes bitcoin to grow in popularity, but on the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion there's going to be backlash way larger than either PayPal or this so-called anti-piracy outfit expect. oO

Ok, now having looked at StopFileLockers.com, they are defiantly on the payroll of the MPAA, if I would have found this site before Ars's pointed it out I would have thought it was a joke it is so bad!

This goes to show why we really need a fairer alternative to PayPal who don't discriminate against customers and businesses, or a law making it illegal for places like PayPal to refuse a customer or a business unless there's proven-in-court fraud or the like.

As for this StopFileLockers place... I wonder if there's a way to take them to court, and/or if there's a way to hit them where it hurts (in the wallet).

I've come to the conclusion that the only reason none of the comments on that post call bullshit on that is that they've all been moderated away.

Please don't give these people your traffic.

(Also of note: the comments area of that page is instead full of comments by "Marc Dassel," an Android developer "litteraly starving because of pirate websites" (sic). Googling shows no connection between the name and the apps he's developing.)

That's is interesting correlation you got, what are the chances Marc Dassel running the site.

The "content" industry is so blatantly hostile to the general public that it's astounding. The world needs to switch away from US-based payment processors. A distributed, anonymous system like Bitcoin is necessary to survive the onslaught of corruption coming from the US.

Controversially, King hasn’t made any secret of the fact he has received financing for his StopFileLockers campaign from Manwin, the huge porn outfit now behind some of the world’s biggest tube sites. Eyebrows have been raised at King’s apparent enthusiasm for killing file-lockers, but for leaving tube sites alone.

But of course, tube sites increase exposure of people to his smut. Why would he cut his own free advertising?

There are significant benefits to file lockers. Anyone who's flashed a custom ROM for their phone has probably downloaded from a file locker. They also provide significant benefit for open source developers.

There are significant benefits to file lockers. Anyone who's flashed a custom ROM for their phone has probably downloaded from a file locker. They also provide significant benefit for open source developers.

Is there a prospect for a class action lawsuit against places like this StopFileLockers place by those who legitimately benefit from file lockers?

I think we should register StopStopFileLockers.com and do exactly the same -- collect money to shut Robert King down by asking stores not to carry his smut. Maybe we should ask Matthew Inman for help on that one.

I do really wonder when SFL is going to go after Google Drive, Skydrive, Dropbox etc...

And honestly their reasoning for why to shut down file lockers are funny if you exclude pirate files they also want to "save" us from weird porn, plus many files are labeled wrong...

And I dislike how payment processors can decide so much what we spend money on (especially because they are "morally wrong") oh well private people own less and less today (we lease stuff..) so I guess we shouldn't own money either :-)

I'm also waiting for Mega to accept Bitcoins, but I guess it's more of a last resort...

I just figured out how I forgot to add accurrent to my Ignore list like I did with his alter ego Titanium Dragon. Mistake corrected, now it will be easier for me to read usefull info in the threads regarding copyright issues.

Curious, the article you linked me to confirms my tired claim. Did you even read it? All the article does is report on the government's indictment, which is not proof either way for whether Megaupload was actually DMCA compliant.

I'd also like to call out the abuse tool. The abuse tool MUST work by removing links, not files, because Megaupload has no knowledge of and cannot know which users hold copyright on content and which don't.

Say an artist creates a recording of a song and uploads the file to Megaupload as a private backup. He then gives a copy to a friend, who gives it to a friend, who uploads it to Megaupload without permission. Now the artist submits a DMCA takedown request against the illegitimate copy of the song. Megaupload has two options, delete the file, or delete the link. If it deletes the file, it would delete the artist's legitimate copy along with the second uploader's illegitimate copy.

That's a problem. Maybe the file on Megaupload is the artist's only backup. Megaupload cannot in good conscience delete user content arbitrarily. Megaupload's only option then is to remove the link.

Deleting links should be enough to be covered by safe harbor under the DMCA. They cannot actively police the content users upload, because there is no way they could possibly verify the copyright ownership of every single file uploaded by every single user. What could they do? Ask the user each time they upload a file to verify that they own the copyright on it? It's already in the terms of service that uploading copyrighted material you don't own is not allowed. That should be enough.

This is why that EU law needs to get introduced. Forbidding payment processors to chose who they work with. Unless there is a court order from either country for sender or country for the recipient blocking the transfer they should be obliged to do it. Failure to follow the law should have damages on the level of copyright infringement. So billions for each failed transaction due to payment processors misbehaviour.

What you somehow forget to mention, is that Megaupload employees allegedly (according to strong evidence) traded and uploaded copyrighted files themselves. Now how is that DMCA compliant?

To read that article and conclude that Megaupload probably complied with the DMCA illustrates an extreme deficit in either reading comprehension or logic.

There is no organisation that doesn't have file sharers as a part of it and the employees of an organisation doing something illegal on their spare time has no impact on the legality of the organisation they work for.

The MPAA was, expectedly, not too pleased with this latest development. Citing the yet unproven fact that DotCom had "built his career and his fortune on stealing creative works", the MPAA said they were "skeptical" of the legality of DotCom's latest enterprise, given his "history of damaging the consumer experience by pushing stolen, illegitimate content into the marketplace".

I find this ironic since it's MPAA's own media that damages the customer experience. "Stolen, illegitimate content" is what keeps the customer experience enjoyable.

Spoiler: show

Large picture comparing the pirate experience vs. the customer experience MPAA wants you to "enjoy."

There is no organisation that doesn't have file sharers as a part of it and the employees of an organisation doing something illegal on their spare time has no impact on the legality of the organisation they work for.

The difference is that Megaupload hosted the files. The employees trading files had the power and legal duty to remove them, but did not.

Right, the problem is you have to prove Mega didn't comply with all takedown requests.

This:"To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."

is legally dubious bullshit unless the person explicitly makes a point of saying that is what they are doing or intent on doing.